You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 15, 2012

Supreme Court Finds “Bull” Marks Not to Be Confusingly Similar

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

This article first appeared on WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in December 2011. For further information, please visit www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

The Trademark Act (BE 2534 (AD 1991)), as amended by the Trademark Act (No 2) (BE 2543 (AD 2000)), provides that, in order to be registered, a trademark or service mark must not be identical, or similar, to an earlier registered trademark. Additionally, a trademark must not be identical, or similar, to a well-known mark, and cause public confusion as to the proprietor of the mark.

In TC Pharmaceutical Industrial Co Ltd v Bullsone Co Ltd (13889-13891/2553, December 30 2010, released on October 10 2011), the Supreme Court has examined the possibility of confusion between a trademark application and an earlier registered mark that is well known in Thailand.

TC Pharmaceutical Industries Co Ltd filed an opposition with the Department of Intellectual Property against three applications filed by Bullsone Co Ltd for the registration of the trademark BULLSPOWER for goods in Classes 1, 2, and 4 of the Nice Classification. TC Pharmaceutical claimed that Bullsone’s trademark was confusingly similar to its well-known mark RED BULL and related ‘bulls’ device, which are registered for goods in Classes 29, 30, 31, and 32. The trademark registrar found that BULLSPOWER was not confusingly similar to the RED BULL mark or the ‘bulls’ device. TC Pharmaceutical appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which agreed with the trademark registrar’s decision.

TC Pharmaceutical then filed a complaint with the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) against Bullsone (as the first defendant) and the Board of Trademarks (as the second defendant). The suit claimed that the board’s decision was unlawful because the first defendant’s trademark was confusingly similar to TC Pharmaceutical’s trademarks. In particular, TC Pharmaceutical noted that the first defendant’s trademark contained the essential element ‘bull’, which was identical to the essential element of TC Pharmaceutical’s mark, and that the first defendant had disclaimed the exclusive right to use the word ‘power’. Therefore, the word ‘power’ was not an essential part of the first defendant’s mark.

The IP&IT Court disagreed with TC Pharmaceutical’s arguments and decided that the mark BULLSPOWER was not similar to any of the plaintiff’s marks. The IP&IT Court thus dismissed the complaint.

The plaintiff subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the IP&IT Court’s decision. According to the Supreme Court, in considering the similarities between the marks, it is necessary to consider the overall appearance of the marks, rather than focusing only on certain elements.

The Supreme Court agreed with TC Pharmaceutical’s premise that the first defendant had disclaimed the exclusive right to use the word ‘power’ and that both marks shared the common word ‘bull’. However, the court held that the marks belonging to TC Pharmaceutical were RED BULL (or RED BULL and ‘bulls’ device), and that the goods covered by the parties’ marks were different. Therefore, the Supreme Court found that the first defendant’s mark was not confusingly similar to TC Pharmaceutical’s marks and, therefore, would not cause confusion among consumers.

The Supreme Court clearly made its decision on the likelihood of confusion by focusing on the appearance of the marks, their pronunciation, and the goods covered by each mark. The court did not give special consideration to the earlier mark’s well-known status.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
Read More
March 6, 2026
Myanmar’s Trademark Law 2019 introduced a modern framework for the registration, enforcement, and protection of trademarks. However, due to the high volume of applications filed during the soft-opening period of the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), marks submitted from 2022 onward remain pending as the IPD works its way through the applications filed in 2021, which it has been publishing on a monthly basis since May 1, 2024. During this period, businesses should adopt proactive strategies to protect their brands, monitor conflicting marks, and ensure a smooth registration process. Practical Steps for Safeguarding Pending Marks While a pending application does not confer full trademark rights, brand owners can take several practical steps to strengthen their position: Monitor IPD publications. Businesses should regularly review the IPD’s monthly gazette to identify any identical or confusingly similar marks at an early stage and prepare timely oppositions in accordance with the Trademark Law’s provisions allowing “any interested party” to file an objection to a trademark application. Monitor market activity. Early detection of potential infringement enables swift action, such as cease-and-desist letters and opposition proceedings. Businesses should monitor competitors, distributors, and retailers for unauthorized use of their marks. Collect evidence of use. Maintaining evidence of use strengthens claims of distinctiveness and supports enforcement efforts. Businesses should keep records of commercial activities, distribution, brand promotion and development, marketing communications, product packaging and labeling, and sales demonstrating brand recognition in Myanmar and internationally, particularly in Southeast Asian markets. Although the Trademark Law 2019 establishes a first-to-file system, evidence of use provides considerable practical support for distinctiveness claims and enforcement actions. Pursue Interim Enforcement Options. A pending trademark application can be relied upon to oppose or refuse other marks on absolute and/or relative grounds of refusal. In addition, marks with established reputations may be protected under passing-off principles
Read More
March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
Read More
February 27, 2026
On January 26, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance issued Circular No. 06/2026/TT-BTC (Circular 06), amending and supplementing Circular No. 13/2015/TT-BTC, which provides guidance on dossiers and procedures for customs recordal and customs supervision in relation to intellectual property rights (IPR). Circular 06 has an effective date of March 1, 2026. Some notable points of Circular 06 include the following: Simplified Documentation for Customs Recordal Applications Circular 06 reduces some documentary requirements for IPR owners: A power of attorney is no longer required to be legalized. Applicants are no longer required to submit title or registration certificates if such documents are issued in digital form. In such cases, it is sufficient to declare comprehensive information on the relevant IPR, enabling customs authorities to verify the information through publicly accessible databases. In practice, this amendment is particularly beneficial for international trademark registrations designating Vietnam. IPR owners may no longer need to obtain a confirmation letter from the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam regarding the validity of a trademark registration in Vietnam. Instead, they may rely on registration status information available from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) database, reflecting that the international registration has been granted protection in Vietnam. Clearer Mechanism for Ex Officio Suspension of Suspected Infringing Goods Although ex officio suspension has been referenced in earlier regulations, Circular 06 provides clearer guidance on the circumstances and procedures under which customs may proactively suspend customs procedures for consignments suspected of being counterfeit or pirated goods. Accordingly, customs authorities may initiate the suspension of clearance without waiting for a formal request from IPR owners. Enhanced Supervision of Imported/Exported Goods in E-Commerce Circular 06 also supplements provisions on the inspection of imported and exported goods transacted through e-commerce channels. Customs authorities may apply risk management measures to assess goods traded via e-commerce
Read More